Automakers and the oil industry released a report today that casts doubt on the safety of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol and shows that at least some engines running the fuel suffered damage during recent testing.

But ethanol backers and the Obama administration immediately countered that the study was fundamentally flawed, because it used engines with known durability issues and didnt include control group testing of the 10 percent ethanol blend that is now the standard at filling stations nationwide.

The dispute is the latest round in a long-running fight over the 15 percent ethanol fuel blend known as E15. A 2007 energy law mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be used by 2022, and the Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 approved the sale of E15 for model year 2001 and newer cars and light trucks. The agency did not clear E15 for use in older vehicles, boats or other devices, such as lawn and garden equipment.

In the new oil industry and automaker-funded study, the not-for-profit Coordinating Research Council tested eight specific engines (28 in all) from vehicles spanning model years 2001 through 2009. Researchers ran the engines for 500 hours under conditions representing about 100,000 miles of driving while fueling them with ethanol-free gasoline, the E15 blend containing 15 percent ethanol and a variety comprising 20 percent ethanol.

Two of the eight engines showed damage while running on E15, according to the study. Specifically, both of those auto engines showed leaking cylinders. Subsequent analysis by their original manufacturers revealed damage to intake valve seats, possibly causing the leakage.

One of the eight engines running E15 also failed emissions tests.

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said that the study results reveal millions of cars are at risk of damage from E15.

Not all vehicles in the CRC tests showed engine damage, but engine types that did are found in millions of cars and light duty trucks now on Americas roads, Gerard said. We believe theres at least as a minimum, 5 million that are subject to damage as a result of this rule, and we believe that is a conservative estimate.

Automakers said the metallurgy and makeup of the engines that had valve leakage could foreshadow problems with similar vehicle engines, including some just now rolling off the assembly line.

Federal regulators and ethanol boosters panned the study. In a blog post, the Department of Energy, which conducted its own testing before the EPA approved E15 in 2010, provided a laundry list of criticisms:

None of the engines were tested with E10, which would have provided a better baseline for comparison, since it is the de facto standard representing more than 90 percent of gasoline available in the U.S. market. Instead, the vehicle engines were run on E20, E15 and an ethanol-free gasoline.

The engine test cycle, which was designed specifically for this study, was specifically designed to stress the engine valve train. Since the test method hasnt been used in other studies, theres no clear way to interpret the results, the Energy Department said.

The standard for measuring engine leakdown  and deeming it as having failed  is not a standard used by automakers and federal agencies for warranty claims or other uses.

The Energy Department also said the study included Several engines already known to have durability issues, including one that was subject to a recall involving valve problems when running on E10 and ethanol-free fuels. It is no surprise that an engine having problems with traditional fuels might also fail with E15 or E20, the Energy Department said.

Bob Dinneen, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, characterized the study as misleading.

By funding research using questionable testing protocols and illegal fuels, the results of this study are meaningless, Dinneen said. The study results only serve to further muddy the waters and shun the overwhelming desire of 75 percent of Americans for greater choice at the pump.

An average car running 10% ethanol removes as many calories from the food chain in a year as it would take to keep two people alive for that same year. That is the caloric value of the ethanol consumed by the engine.

4
posted on 05/16/2012 10:53:02 AM PDT
by LOC1
(Let's pick the best, not settle for a compromise.)

My ATV manual says not to use alcohol in the fuel. I had to fix the carb in my chainsaw because or the eco terrorists and their e10. Let a chain saw set in the sun and get warm and it will not start. Open the gas cap and watch the alcohol boil out. Open a 5 gallon can of gas on a hot day and it may boil over on you. Fire Hazard, not to the EPA.

6
posted on 05/16/2012 10:56:36 AM PDT
by mountainlion
(I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)

An average car running 10% ethanol removes as many calories from the food chain in a year as it would take to keep two people alive for that same year.

I don't care for the ethanol in fuel, but it is tough to claim that was removed from the food chain. More corn is grown because of the ethanol demand and much of it first is processed for cattle feed (DDG) and the remainder used for fuel.

These are government experts who are making engineering decisions, even though they were political science and psychology majors in college, since calculus was too hard. They're the best and brightest, just like the ones who knew better than Eugene Stoner and his engineering specifications for the M-16. Who cared if the government used a different powder in the ammo, since there was so much of it left over from WWII and Korea. And then there were the geniuses in government who assumed the design of a direct impingement action meant "self cleaning," so M-16s were shipped into the field without cleaning kits. Oh, and the chrome plated chambers called for in the specs? Too expensive, so get rid of it from the production models.

I wonder how many of our guys were killed in Viet Nam because of "government experts" and what they did to Eugene Stoner's M-16?

Mark

14
posted on 05/16/2012 11:05:26 AM PDT
by MarkL
(Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)

No boat owners I know use E-10 without adding a stabilizer that isn’t cheap or only use ethanol free gas. A few years ago E-10 was determined to be a death sentence for many older boat motors. It later came out that it was also taking out new ones.

I'd have to guess that most vehicles are not rated/designed to run E-15. It will kill most older engines. You know, the ones that run like a tank.The alcohol, aside from disturbing (slowing down) the fuel burn timing is also hygroscopic. It absorbs water into the fuel.

They took eight engines and damaged two, %25 failure rate. These are also new engines, a study does no good with used parts.

Lawnmowers need to be drained in the fall due to the additives in the gas absorbing water over the winter. Fixed many a broken mower for others by knowing this simple fact.

carburetors and fuel pumps with rubber diaphragms will not stand up. There is no damage to the engine itself. fuel lines are not a problem to replace on small engines. The gas tank is in close proximity to the engine and the lines are easily accessible.

The problem is that the alcohol has a high octane. It is mixed into the fuel and falls out of suspension when it absorbs 5%(?) water by volume. Then your octane drops significantly and detonation occurs.

22
posted on 05/16/2012 11:22:39 AM PDT
by Clay Moore
(The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2)

Doing so tells me when I need to change spark plugs, etc. I change oil, filters, on a very regular basis.

The 10% Ethanol used to be just a part of the year additive. I could tell exactly when it was in the tank based on my mileage. My mileage drops between 10% and 13% with that fuel added to regular gasoline.

I have had one vehicle since 1991 and one since 1986. I have all those records.

I made the mistake of putting some E10 in my motorcycle and it took several tanks of pure premium gasoline and some fuel system cleaner to getting it running right again. Ethanol is crap no matter what percentage of it is mixed with gasoline.

On a recent trip from Montana to California I tanked up my 2012 Silverado on E15. My fuel mileage dropped from 24 MPG (read on my trip computer, flat road, speed control set at 80 MPH) to 14 MPG. How can reducing fuel mileage by almost 50% help us save resources?

It sounds like the onboard computer wasn’t programmed for fuel with that much ethanol. It couldn’t tell it from bad gas and pessimistic parameters were used. You’d sacrifice something in energy content with an extra 5% ethanol, but that much makes no engineering sense.

32
posted on 05/16/2012 11:57:51 AM PDT
by HiTech RedNeck
(Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)

I have a 95 Polaris 425. The alcohol evaporates and dissolves the $100 diaphragm in the carb. I can see alcohol bubbles in the fuel filter while it is running. If it gets too warm there are too many bubbles and the engine vapor locks and stops.

46
posted on 05/16/2012 1:03:25 PM PDT
by mountainlion
(I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)

I have a 71 Norton with a fiberglass tank. (Luckily it's in storage.) Ethanol will eventually eat through it. Before I can put it on the road again, I have to buy an expensive epoxy sealer and coat the inside of the tank.

You don’t have to process corn to be able to feed it to cows. If is a high calorie cattle feed as grown.

All the processing does is remove calories, which are turned into ethanol. The remaining cattle feed, which did not need processing in the first place is lower in calories.

Corn prices in my part of the world have gone from $2.65 for 50 pounds of corn prior to ethanol in gasoline to $10.20 now. That increase is much more than the increase in energy costs over the same time period.

Food costs are only about 15% of disposable income in the US, but may be 40-50% of disposable income in other parts of the world.

When corn prices increase, because it is used to make ethanol, someone somewhere cannot no longer afford food.

And no, I don’t mean that people eat hard corn, just that many of the calories in that hard corn are being burned in our cars.

Do the calculations yourself. Average fleet mileage is about 20 miles per gallon. Annual average mileage is about 12,000 miles. That means each car is burning about 60 gallons of ethanol per year. Look up the caloric content of ethanol and see how many calories were burned in that car.

48
posted on 05/16/2012 1:36:15 PM PDT
by LOC1
(Let's pick the best, not settle for a compromise.)

Will the government foot the bill for the engine damage done by this mandate and will Government Motors continue to honor the warranties of its vehicles when the owner's manual specifically says that no more than E10 can be used as fuel.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.